- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 14:13:27 -0700
- To: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 My view is that SHACL is indeed different from OWL and RDFS in this way. Whether that difference is enough to necessitate a quoting mechanism when using identifiers is a separate, but related, question. peter On 03/20/2015 02:06 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote: > Peter, > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider > <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >> >> The benefit is representational cleanliness. The literals of type >> xsd:anyURI are being turned into bits of SPARQL code, which are >> character strings that are of the form of IRIs. > > Do you think that the use of IRIs in SHACL is conceptually different than > the use of IRIs in RDFS or OWL? If so, how? If SHACL uses IRIs in a way > similar to the way RDFS and OWL do , then we shouldn't use ^^xsd:anyURI. > > -- Arthur > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVDI13AAoJECjN6+QThfjzJl8IAJeb3c93Ai6ZtcG8fRwwz3kX MqZovzl1t2d4NFCI5LO7JzhXN2CTWSL2up2KUQEmVMCXLcQqrOGVBOBhKkDX2Z3l sULwBMWOJR0ieQi/CcR34V5s3/O0IRdGdM/WGccZnW+NLJCbJp8mwbMjIfm0xxkY lb0g5o3NAUO02/gsxbmXrgTTmpw05Xszi7V5R2MNg3P+ptqw6XVW7jyh85i4J+Xi 4WAQTR4goUShoq7X8Axauy6f7aLZaph8+g2tVAhYVZBhvq+JUa5MuSdhd+gWatI5 JSqLsoLoOB9ZM+p/I9f7evTTdB7VEOEPXtrLBz48X73XOyB+Ba4/FMARt+RJnd0= =ef2h -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 20 March 2015 21:13:56 UTC